of lead on the battlefield quickly. that is what they could do and that was proof right there in that video this morning. they have the capability to be held and used to produce rapid fire. i asked a question on month ago, what purpose does serve in civilians hands are on the street. i haven't received an answer yet but they did blurt the second amendment. 2nd amendment. it wasn't about the 2nd amendment. i defend the second amendment. and i want to see that upheld and regulated and it hasn't been. when that was written on most 300 years ago we didn't have the weapons we have today in the technology. they had muskets and cannons. i think it was 1934 when the ban

was put on machine guns, the regulation. we haven't had a mass killing with a machine gun since. i feel these so-called assault weapons that have certain characteristics should fall in that category and be banned. >> thank you mr. heslin, thank you very much. at one point steinbeck had to write a small paragraph that said basically, people are asking what happened. this was after his wife joined him in seattle and when he says we get is not charlie and john.

and somebody must have said tim hey where's charlie? yes disappeared. stained -- steinbeck wrote a a page and a half of legal tablet saying people that's what happened to charlie. when my lady fair join me in seattle charlie took his third position in the family and he is fine. obviously that never appeared in the book is what they didn't do is the editors went in and just expunged elaine entirely from the west coast, almost 30 days of elaine's presents with john on the west coast. they weren't camping out and they weren't in america they were basically on vacation.

>> host: rosa parks civil rights leader and activist will be commemorated in a statue unveiled today in the capital. here now to tell us more about the sculpture and processes eugene dog. >> good morning, thank you. >> host: tell us how you were selected to create this piece the sculpture of rosa parks? >> guest: i'm sorry repeat that. >> host: how were you when your firm selected to create the sculpture? >> guest: it was decided by the nea and it was a national

competition and i believe there were over 150 entries and then it was narrowed down to five finalists. those five finalists competed and that is how we ended up getting it. >> this will be in statuary hall in the capitol building. i am learning from the l.a. times the first full-size statue of an african-american in the capital collection in more than 180 statues. what did it mean to you to create a? >> first of all it's the first african-american woman in statuary hall in the resident capital and century hall and i think is one other in the capital. but it is a tremendous honor and privilege to have done this and i am very excited about today. >> host: we will see the unveiling in a couple of hours, 11:00 a.m. and c-span will be sharing that. the president will be in

attendance and leaders in congress. what did you learn about rosa parks when you were going in the creative process, what did you want to communicate through your p.'s? >> guest: quiet strength and dignity, sort of a resolution is determined look and not anything unpleasant or challenging. just a quiet determined person who had a tremendous amount of courage. >> host: of course the story from the l.a. times reminds us that rosa parks made history back in 1955 by refusing to move to the back of the bus and she is making history again this week when her statue was unveiled in the u.s. capital. we have not gotten to see the finished product yet, not until the unveiling in a few hours. what were the logistics involved in getting across the country from california where you work and also getting it set up in the capital is. >> guest: well my partner came out several days ago to coordinate the moving of it and

she was in a warehouse in a crate for a little while here in washington. i wasn't here but i saw some photographs. they had a large crane and she weighs 2700 pounds. so they lifted her up with one of those long extension cranes, narrowly guided her into statuary hall. >> host: eugene daub your firm has done other sculptures. it any significant in your experience as this one? >> guest: well you know i don't think there is any as high-profile as high-profile as this one for sure. we have done jefferson and lincoln and louis and clark and a lot of other wonderful famous and important people but for some reason russo creates a stir and i think it's timely with black history month and her 100th anniversary that she --

everybody loves her right now and remembers her. >> host: eugene daub sculpture of the rows of parked statute -- next -- you will be unveiled at 11:00 this morning as we mentioned leaders of congress and president obama will be on hand. thanks so much for talking to us today. >> guest: thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> ladies and gentlemen please welcome our honored guests, members of the united states house of representatives, members of the united states senate, the speaker of the united states house of representatives and the president of the united states. [applause]

[applause] ladies and gentlemen the speaker of the united states house of representatives, the honorable john boehner. >> hello everybody. thank you. good morning and welcome to the united states capital. this is a red letter day for the american people and i'm glad that you are all here and are taking part in the celebration. since the error of reconstruction, this chamber which once was the hall of the house of representatives, has become home to statues sent by the states. today we gather to dedicate a national statute of the late

rose -- parks to the cause of freedom. it's the first statue of an african-american woman to be placed in this capitol. [applause] [applause] [applause] we are honored today to be joined by the president of the united states and members of his administration. [applause]

this is a homecoming of sorts for ms. parks who for more than 20 years was an assistant to representative john conyers of michigan. [applause] and i want to thank all the members of congress who are here and all who worked to make this day possible. also with us today are eugene -- eugene daub sculpture and dr. firm and the co-designer of the statue. [applause] i think it's safe to say that this wasn't just any project and these gentlemen certainly rose to the occasion. gentleman, please rise to the occasion. [applause] to entail a statue we will be joined by steve keyes and elaine

steele a longtime friend. [applause] elaine steele a longtime friend of ms. parks and co-founder of the rows are and raymond parkes institute of cell development. thank you both for joining us and thanks to all for civil rights guests who honor us today with your presence. every now and then we will stop back and say to ourselves, what a country. this is one of those moments. because yes all men and women are created equal but as we will hear during the ceremony, some grow to be larger than life and to be honored as such. welcome. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen please stand for the presentation of

the colors by the united states color guard, the singing of the national anthem and the retiring of the colors. [background sounds] ♪ oh say can you see ♪ by the dawn's early light ♪ ♪ what so proudly we hailed

♪ at the twilight's ♪ ♪ last gleaming ♪ whose broad stripes ♪ and bright stars ♪ thro' the perilous fight ♪ ♪ o'er the ramparts we watched ♪ ♪ were so gallantly streaming ♪ and the rocket's red glare ♪ ♪ the bombs bursting in air ♪ gave proof thro' the night ♪ ♪ that our flag ♪ was still there ♪ o say does that star-spangled ♪ banner yet wave ♪ o'er the land of the free ♪ and the home of the brave

[background sounds] >> ladies and gentlemen please remain standing as the chaplain of the united states senate dr. barry black gives the invocation.

>> let us pray. oh mighty god, sovereign of our nation and lord of our lives, thank you for this opportunity to place a statue in the u.s. capitol building that honors a gifted, courageous and talented woman, rosa aluise parks. we praise you lord for infusing her with the resolve to sit down so that millions could stand up, helping to launch a nationwide effort to win the segregation of public facilities. we are grateful for her commitment to bring deliverance to those held captive by in

justice, to restore the site of the ethically and morally blind and to bind the wounds of those bruised by the sins of omission, committed by good people who failed to act. may her life and legacy inspire us to courageously tackle the challenges of our times, laboring to ensure that justice will roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream. we pray in your sovereign name, amen.

>> please be seated. ladies and gentlemen please remain seated for the unveiling of the statue. [applause] [applause]

ladies and gentlemen the statue of rosa parks. [applause] ladies and gentlemen the united states army chorus. ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ [applause] [applause] [applause]

ladies and gentlemen the assistant democratic leader of the united states house of representatives the honorable james clyburn. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. mr. president, speaker boehner, leader pelosi, leaders reid and mcconnell, friends and colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, this is a good time and a great place to honor the most honorable woman. this year marks the 150th anniversary of the us signing of the emancipation proclamation which jumpstarted a march to freedom for many who, while in servitude, built this great edifice. this year is the 50th anniversary for the march on

washington and advent in our quest for human dignity. rosa parks, the first lady of civil rights, the mother of the movement, the saint of an endless struggle, however one wished to -- referred to her the statue forever ordains rosa parks as an icon of our nation struggles to live out its declaration that we are all created equal. one hour ago, i sat across the street witnessing the opening arguments of a voting rights case before the united states supreme court, a case that many feel could turn the clock back on much of the progress that has been made and for which we pause

today to honor rosa parks. the struggle goes on. the movement continues. the pursuit is not over. to honor rosa parks in the fullest manner, each of us must do our part to protect that which has been gained, defend the great documents on which those were obtained and will continue our pursuit of a more perfect union. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen the democratic leader of the united states house of representatives, the honorable nancy pelosi. [applause]

>> good morning. mr. president, leader boehner, leader mcconnell, mr. speaker, my colleague mr. clyburn and house and senate and distinguished guests, thank you mr. speaker for making this day possible. thank you so much. [applause] one distinguished guests who is not with this but maybe has come late is john lewis,. we were on the steps of the supreme court and mr. clyburn stayed and mr. john lewis is holding forth over there now and it's an honor to serve in the congress of the united states was john lewis. [applause] and it is a joy to be here to honor rosa parks. when rosa parks was a little

baby, her mother sang a hymn of freedom, let it ring. she would hear that hymn in church as she grew up. it became the anthem of her life and the mission of her life. as rosa parks would say years later, i would like to be remembered as a person who wanted to be free and wanted other people to be free too. rosa parks is being remembered with this statue in the capital, but this is not the first time her greatness has been wrecked nice. she has many connections to congress and she is no stranger to these halls. she has recognized with a congressional gold medal inscribed with the title, mother of the modern-day civil rights movement with the words inscribed, quiet strength, pride, dignity and courage. that was a great day and we

honored her. she had personal connections to the house as the speaker mentioned. for 18 years she was an assistant to john conyers. john conyers. [applause] and they worked together. they worked together to advance the cause of civil rights and equality. we always ask mr. conyers to tell us stories about rosa parkt rose some parts. one that i think is appropriate at this time is john conyers first met her when he was just out of school and traveling to join the civil rights movement after law school and he met her then. she worked in his first campaign and she would later become his first congressional higher, the first person he hired on his congressional staff. well pretty soon mr. conyers found out that people were visiting the office to see rosa parks and not the congressman. [laughter] and she was invited all over the

country to be honored. how about this mr. president? one day she went to him and she said, she wanted to thank him for allowing her to be honored all over the country and would be willing to take a pay cut for her time away from the office. [laughter] ..

i got an app for is action to it. what can you say about

presidents past and future khmer preachers from all over the country. i promised them that the legislation would pass, and quickly. that funeral was november saikia. and on december 1st, president george w. bush signed it into law. [applause] 50 years to decades of rosa parks sat down on the bus in montgomery. [applause] 50 years to the day. so rosa parks should feel right at home in the capital attorneys sojourner truth, dr. martin luther king and many other american heroes. she will inspire all who walked these halls, especially young

people are quite stained, pride, dignity, courage. he shows you how rosa parks is recognized by congress. now if they could share comments from one of my invited guests, the baseball great willie mays, my favorite port in alabama who sells the same injustice is this rosa parks did when he was growing up. he couldn't be here today, but he sent a letter and said i could share these words about her. he said more than mass -- he said most times change does happen fast. most times it happens but i bet, little by little, one person's actions inspired in another. this approach simply did what was natural. she was tired so she sat down and that simple act sparks outrage in the average spread and one person's actions

inspired change. he went on to say, we will try to remember to encourage change when it serves justice and today we will remember with admiration the simple acts of a preformatted. we will remember, we've are on our rosa parks. buckley was a fellow alabama, all-american willie mays. i dedicated the statue for serving justice and inspiring change. make the statue laundry strength to her trip you. may god bless the memory of rosa parks. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, the republican leader of the united states senate, the honorable mitch mcconnell.

[applause] >> mr. president, you honor us with your presence. thank you for being here. [applause] speaker boehner, leader reid, leader pelosi, assistant leader claver, members of the parks family, distinguished guests and friends, we gather here today to remember he wanted his legacy has dirty outlived her time among us. and we honor her not only with her presence with this permanent reminder of the cause she embodied. but this statue reaffirms that the courage and the cause of her as a parks not only earned her a place in the hurts of all americans, but a permanent place among the other figures in this

whole of national memory. rosa parks may not have led us to the jury against the british. she didn't give a single speech in the senate or the house or blast off into space or point the way west in the western wilderness. yet with quiet courage, and unshakable resolve them as she did something no less important on a cold elegant evening in 1955. she helped unite the spirit of america, which the founders so perfectly and courageously expressed in the opening words of the declaration of independence. but the format government basir brilliantly outlined in our constitution, for some, rosa parks served as an inspiration to stand up against injustice.

for others, she was a spur to reflection and self-examination. in the reconciliation of cherished ideals of freedom, democracy and constitutional rights with the reality of life as others live it. as president bush put it up on signing the bill that authorized this statue, she set in motion the national movement for equality and freedom, which is of course why we are here today. rosa parks is often portrayed as a quiet, unassuming figure. she lives in america's collect his memory, and a pair frameless class is, hair pulled back, neatly dressed in a simple hat and dress are staring

historically ahead in the famous photo as prisoners 7053. we should not let that overshadow her. this is a woman who pedro went through school by cleaning classrooms when she was just a child. the woman who was so determined to exercise her civic freedoms -- each of the segregationists air lift or see exam, a test designed to keep so many african-americans before her from registering to vote. not once or twice, but three times until she passed it. so today as americans, we are united and brain imaging -- rosa louise parks clutching her purse in those tense moments is not from a city bus number 2857 rolled down cleveland avenue.

and we are reminded of the power of simple acts of courage. on an otherwise ordinary evening in montgomery, she did the extraordinary they simply staying put. and in the process, she helped all of us discovers something about ourselves. and about the great regenerative capacity of america. we have had the humility as a nation to recognize past mistakes and we've had the strength to confront those mistakes. but it has always required a public rosa parks to help us get there because of the changes she helped set in motion, entire generations of americans have been able to grow up in a nation where segregated buses only existing museums, were children

of every race are free to fulfill their god-given potential and where the simple carpenter's daughter from tuskegee is honored as a national hero. what a story, what a legacy, what a country. thank you. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, the majority leader of the united states senate, the honorable harry reid. [applause] >> a hundred years have too wrote a born, within half a century after she sports the civil rights movement, the united states is striving to make sure every american is not only created equal by god, they treated equally in the world.

as america shaped his future, struggles with this past and which was their principal, but not always part is. two of the best motion pictures this year were nominated for academy awards. on-screen cinematic trinkets at the legacy of our nation's darkest institution, slavery. one film presents an unvarnished view of evils of slavery. the other depicts a typical journey to end slavery. the significance of 150 years after president abraham lincoln signed the emancipation proclamation are still considering in film and photo and art they cannot eradicate slavery's unsavory successors, racism and inequality. in the doorway to my capitol office, i have a photograph of the president in the oval

office. let me tell you why it's there. i got up this i always do to read the newspaper and saw this picture in the "washington post" all over the country. we have these wonderful military officers who served as honor guard in the white house, dressed in a cnc uniforms and what happens is the president invites them into the oval office. the officer and his family. this officer was invited with his wife and two children. the picture was not a posed picture of a photographer who didn't have time to take a picture the way he wanted, but this little boy jacob said any of those ways, said to the president of the united states,

but did you say, but he? the boy said, can i feel your hair? [laughter] i am sure this little boy had been teased at school because of his hair. so the president leaned over and that's the picture. this angelic child is feeling his hair. what is finished to blame the hair, he looked to the president of the united states and said it's just mine. [applause] i show that picture to everyone who comes into my office. even today, after months and months of the signed pictures the president gave to me causes me to shed a tear. to me in to us as a reminder that although our journey is not

over, this country has come far short herstory to living up to its founding principles. without the determination sacrifice of rosa parks, this presidency, this photograph, so much of the progress we've made to perfect our union would not have been possible. so today, a nation pays an enduring tribute to a woman who wrote the world when she refused to move her seat. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, the speaker of the united states house of representatives, the honorable john boehner. [applause] >> let me think again all of you for joining us at this wonderful ceremony today. in many ways this statue speaks for itself, which is a blessing

because no words can do justice to rosa parks. here in the old hall, she cast an unlikely silhouette, unassuming and a lineup of crowd stares, challenging all of this once more to look up and to draw strength from stillness. as a child, rosa parks was shy, reserved, at least on the outside. on the inside, she was absolutely observed in the gospel, listening closely to god, who as she sat in was everything to me. stir every ordeal, she repeats some scripture to resolve with. from corinthians we were all made to train for one spirit. from luke, the parable of the persistent widow, the praise for an unjust judge until finally he

sees the light. so it's no surprise that when warned that she would be arrested, rosa parks didn't have to look very far for courage. didn't have to look anywhere. i felt quite determined. i felt determination, over my body, like a quilt on a winter night. you see, humility isn't compatible with bravery. when we put god before ourselves, when we make in god we stressed not just a motto but admission is rosa parks did can be lifted. this statue speaks for itself and we speak for a nation committee to remembering and more importantly emulating rosa

parks. so we place over here in the chamber where many fights to prevent a day like this and write days of jefferson davis, it brings to mind lady liberty herself, rising amidst the presiding over new york harbor, the promise of america clear for all to see. for wednesday's ceremony come down to people from all walks of life see backgrounds and beliefs will pass through here, passed by another, some other way to to cast a vote. it will be an ordinary route, but one that about half a century ago is clearly improbable. i can think of no more perfect way to capture the vision of a more perfect union into which

ms. parks has dirty started. it's my honor to accept into the r. collection this statue of rosa louise parks, a lady liberty for our times all times. with that, it's my pleasure to introduce the president of the united states. [applause] >> mr. speaker, leader reid, leader mcconnell leader claver, friends and family of rosa parks and the distinguished guests who are gathered here today, this morning we celebrated seamstress, slight

stature, but maybe encourage. she defied the odds, she defied injustice. she lived a lack of activism and also violates the dignity and grace. and in a single moment, the simplest of gestures should help change america, and change the world. rosa parks held an elected office. she possessed no fortune, lived her life far from the seats of power. yet today she takes her rightful place on those who shape this nation scores. i think all those persons, particularly members of the congressional black caucus, both

past and present for making this moment possible. [applause] a childhood friend once said about ms. parks, nobody ever prospers around and got away with it. that's what an alabama driver learned on december 1st, 1955. 12 years earlier, he had kicked mrs. parks office bias simply because she entered through the front door when the doctor was too crowded. he grabbed her sleeve and push her off the bus. they made her mad enough she would recall that she avoided writing his bus for a while. and when they met again that winter evening in 1955, rosa

parks would not be pushed. the driver got off his seat to insist she took her purse, she would not be pushed. when he threatened to have her arrested, she simply replied, you may do that. and he did. a few days later, rosa parks challenged her arrest. and don't pastor and a two town of only 26 years old stood with him, a man named barton at the king junior. so did dozens of montgomery alabama commuters. they began a boycott, teachers, laborers, clergy and domestics, through rain and cold in

sweltering heat, day after day, week after week, month after month, walking the miles that they had to, arranging carpools that they could, not thinking about the blisters on their feet, the weariness after a full day of work, walking for a restart, walking for freedom. treatment by a solemn determination to affirm the god-given dignity. 385 days after rosa parks refused to give up her seat, the boycott ended. black men and women and children reported the buses of montgomery , newly desegregated sat in whatever seat happened to be open.

[applause] and with that victory, the entire edifice of segregation, like the ancient walls of jericho began to slowly come tumbling down. it's been often remarked that rosa parks act to be sent to i'm not us. long before she made headlines, she has stood up for freedom, stood up for equality, fighting for voting rights, rallying against discrimination in the criminal justice system, serving in the local chapter of the naacp. her quiet leadership would continue long after she became an icon of the civil rights movement, working with congressman conyers to find homes for the homeless,

preparing disadvantaged youth for a path to success, straightening each day to write some raw somewhere in this world. and yet, our minds fasten on that single moment of the guys. ms. parks of london that see, clutching her purse, staring out a window, waiting to be arrested. that moment tells us something about how change happens or doesn't happen. the choices we make or don't make. for now we see through a glass darkly the scripture says. and it's true.

whether out of inertia or selfishness, whether out of fear or simple lack of moral imagination, we so often spend our lives as if in a fog, accepting injustice, rationalizing inequity, tolerating the intolerable, like the best are, but also like the passengers on the bus. we see the way things are, children hungry and a land of plenty, tired neighborhoods ravaged by violence, families hobbled by job loss and illness. we make excuses for inaction. and we say to ourselves, that's not my responsibility.

there's nothing i can do. rosa parks tells us there's always some day we can do. she tells us that we all have responsibilities to ourselves and to one another. she reminds us that this is how change happens, not manly through the exploits of the famous, but through the countless acts of olyphant anonymous courage and kindness and fellow feeling the responsibility to continually, separately expand injustice, our conception of what is possible. rosa parks singular act launched

a movement. they tired beat of those who want a dusty roads of montgomery hoped a nation feedback to which it had once been blind. it is because of these men and women that i stand here today. it is because of them that our children grow up in a land more free and more fair, a land truer to its founding creed. and that is why this statue belongs in this whole, to remind s. no matter how humble her last year positions, just what it is that leadership requires, just what it is that citizenship requires.

rosa parks would have turned 100 years old this month. we do well by placing a statue of her here, but we can do no greater honor to her memory to carry forward the power of her principal and the courage born of conviction. may god bless the memory of rosa parks and may god bless these united states of america. [applause] [applause]

>> please be seated. ladies and gentlemen, the united states army chorus. view smock ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, please send us a chaplain of the united states house of representatives, the referendum patrick conboy gives the benediction.

>> that us pray. we give you thanks, almighty god, for your gift to our nation of rosa parks, you're good and faithful servant, one of their finest citizens of montgomery took and heroic stand by saving her prophetic passion, one against so many tour tour in an oddly graced time of history changed the course of human history as it is lived on our continent. essential catalyst in the events which came to define the civil rights era, her causally deep in the record of so many racial injustices. now this congress, united as

once it was, when honoring her with the congressional gold medal, on mary's the modern-day civil rights movement with this statue. as we leave this place, may we never forget it the incredible bravery and sacrifices of those like rosa parks who call us to greatness as american citizens give us the grace, to remain vigilant in guaranteeing that no person in our great land should every sector injustice, like so many of our national heroes and once did. amen.

>> ladies and gentlemen, please remain at your seats for the departure of the official party. following the official departure, casar to fallen tree fallen tree view in mind as they pass a whole. additional instructions will be provided to our guests in the capitol visitor center on how they will join with you in mind. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> the problem with the enemy in any book is that once you ban one, we don't know when that full text and that road takes us

back to totalitarian states. bless me ultima has been banned many times, especially in classrooms i think simply because sometimes a parent doesn't understand the novel. they haven't read it. there's been cases where school boards are parents have asked to be in the novel and it turns out they just haven't read it. they pick words or a phrase here and there, or a paragraph, but i'm glad to say that in every instance were sent to ship of the novel has had to, every instance that i know of, the commune the, parents and families have gone to schools

and say this is our literature. this is important literature and you can't beat them because you pick a word or two or paragraph and in every case that i know of, the beginning has been overturned. >> a panel of legal scholars suggest that the judiciary and congress should ban executive branch decisions targeting suspects overseas. testifying before the house judiciary committee, witnesses also said the white house washtenaw for such action a place to very few people. this is a little less than two and a half hours.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> good mible conversations] >> good morning. the judiciary committee will come to order. but that objection chair is required to declare recess at any time ever well, burnt to the hearing on drones in the war and terror, when can the board at your nearest target overseas. i recognize myself for not being statement. on february 4, 2013, a confidential justice department white paper outlining legal justification for targeted killings of u.s. citizens overseas was leaked to nbc news. the leak of this white paper brought renewed attention to initiate largely ignored during president about his tenure. is the targeted killing of alleged american terrorists appropriate and under what circumstances? the way paper confirms a palpable shift in war on terror policy by this president.

in 2007, barack obama from illinois they got his position on the war on terror. stability better, freer world community must behave in ways that reflect decency and aspirations of the american people. this means shipping with prisoners in the dead of night in far-off countries are detaining dozens of that charge or trial for secret prisons to people beyond the reach of the law. the same president of foreign terrorists oppose the use of enhanced interrogation tape needs some foreign terrorists attempted to bring foreign terrorists to trial in new york city is now personally prevent the killing of americans. ironically, the detention facility in guantánamo remains open and khalid sheikh mohammed and co-conspirators are being tried before a military commission. following the release of the way

paper, a bipartisan group of members requested the opportunity to review the memos that form the basis of the white paper. a request was denied. when a president obama's first acts was to release the enhanced interrogation tapethat most of the public, but he now refuses to provide his justice department killing him is not just to the public on the bed even congressional overseers. we'll simply the justice department to testoverseers. we'll simply the justice department to testify today. that request was denied, too. according to appease one estimate, drone strikes have increased six fold under the obama administration, anywhere from 2500 to 4000 people have been killed a strikes. this administration is not just targeting foreign fighters, but american citizens as well. president obama ordered the killing of and were al-awlaki.

they killed him and his 16-year-old son in a drone strike in yemen. america now knows the criteria used to dominate and americans for targeted killing. the way paper size for the legal framework for when the u.s. government can use lethal force against the u.s. citizens who is a senior operational leader of al qaeda or an associated force. it is located in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities. the justice department claims in such a case lethal force to be lawful or three conditions are met and informed high-level official of the u.s. government has determined the targeted individual poses an imminent threat against the united states, capture is infeasible in the united states continues to monitor whether capture becomes feasible. three, the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with principles of the laws of war. today's hearing will examine the justice department's way paper

and constitutional issues surrounding the targeted killing of americans overseas. we have assembled an impressive panel of experts to help the committee analyze these important issues. we ask members of the steps to locate where that is going on and ask them to allow us to conduct the hearing without the pain of drilling. the targeted killing of americans overseas has ignited a debate about the bread to the president's commander-in-chief authority in the standard that should apply with targeting americans. is the way paper a fair reading under the law? under what circumstances can the president decided to kill an american citizen? is there in the process of law that must be granted can kill an american? does the administration's approach comport with the law? should the present appeal to decide unilaterally to kill

americans? the american people deserve to know and understand the legal basis under which the obama administration believes it can kill u.s. citizens and under what circumstances. obviously the memos made available for the justice department to testify today members of the committee could have a fuller understanding of the administration's legal rationale. however, today's hearing will hold a public debate of the issues. now it is my pleasure to recognize the ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, for his opening statement. >> thank you, chairman goodlatte and members of the committee and our distinguished witnesses present. we are here examining a pressing matter, namely the use of unmanned aerial vehicles, drones

to strike at suspected terrorists abroad. first, let's make clear the house judiciary's jurisdiction over thlear the house judiciary's jurisdiction over the matter. these are serious constitutional considerations involved and that's why this committee has been created for as well as civil rights questions, which are also involved in this operation. our committee has direct oversight of the department of justice, which has issued legal opinions although classified, that report to establish the legal basis for the use of legal force against terrorists. now, in the course of this issue

that has been raised, numerous letters have been sent and i want to point out that our latest one that was joined in with myself, chairman goodlatte, former chairman james sensenbrenner, trent franks, jerry nadler and bobby scott, who wrote it can to the president to renew our request for legal opinions related to drug programs. i am pleased that we've reached a clear bipartisan consensus on this issue. this committee requires those documents to fulfill its oversight responsibility.

this isn't a witch hunt. this is an inquiry and were all cleared for top secret and will work together to convince the administration to satisfy our requests. let's examine the couple issues here. targeted strikes against the united states citizens, targeted strikes generally and three the odious so-called signature strikes. now, the need for oversight is clear. i am not convinced in the title

of the hearing us suggests that the administration's legal rationale for the targeted killing of any united states citizen overseas. the way paper describes the balancing test for the fourth amendment unlawful seizure of a person or a life. the amendment due process, which tilted so far in favor of government entries that a potential target appears to have little chance that meaningful due process when he is nominated without his consent of course, to the so-called kill list. they also remain unconvinced

about the targeted killing of terrorist suspects who are noncitizens. although the administration appears to rest his claim of authority on the authorization for use of military force passed by the congress in 2001 and is not clear that congress intended to sanction legal force against a loosely defined enemy and an indefinite conflict with snowboarders are discernible and b. mm considerably troubled by the way they were ported use of so-called signature strikes, where suspects need only displays suspicious that to be the, that their identities are

unknown prior to the government's use of lethal force against them. that may be a cia at dvd that should be sent over to the defense department by the way. today, and i brushed to the conclusion, we want to accomplish the following. we need to know more and i hope that the way we conduct this hearing individually among our members of the committee were convinced the administration that this is not a personal, nor political and that all we are

seeking his information to which we are duly entitled and we have one committee on intelligence that has gotten to reporters saturday dozen or more. that is not accept full and with all due respect to an administration that i support, we are creating a resentment on a visceral level as general stanley mcchrystal has echoas gl stanley mcchrystal has echoed a new level we can't begin to imagine. the crystal was the architect of counterinsurgency in afghanistan the resentment created by the

american news of unmanned strikes is much greater than the average american appreciates. well, i think we appreciated that we want to have this become the first of a number of hearings. i conclude by saying i don't think that the attorney general of the united states can decline to come before this committee on a subject that is so clearly within our jurisdiction. mr. chairman, i got back my time. >> i thank the gentleman for that expression of concern. i share it and i will work with members on his side of the aisle and our side of the isle to bring about better cooperation because we are seeking information that this committee is entitled to have.

we have a very distinguished panel -- without objection, all numbers have been the fitness be made part of the record that we will turn to our panel. we have a distinguished panel joining us now begin by introducing the witnesses. our first is mr. john bellinger, a personal ad is offered in washington d.c. where he advises sovereign governments in u.s. foreign companies and a variety of international law and u.s. national security law issues. mr. bellinger is also an adjunct senior fellow in international and national security like the council on foreign relations who directs the program on international justice. he served as legal adviser for the u.s. department of state under secretary of state condoleezza rice for april 25, earning the secretary of state service award. mr. bellinger received his pastor's degree from the international affairs at princeton university, j.d. from

harvard god and most recently a masters degree in foreign affairs at the university of virginia. we are fortunate to have him and his expertise with us today. our second when mrs. professor robert chesney, professor of modern associate dean for academic affairs at the university of texas school of law. professor chesney specializes in issues regarding u.s. national security law such as military detention, but the judiciary national security affairs and terrorism related prosecution. he is a fellow at the brookings institution associate team member of the council on foreign relations. truth is served on the detention policy task force. mr. chesney are dispatcher's degree in political science and psychology from texas christian university and subsequently graduated bandicoot lot from harvard law school. we welcome his experience and expertise. the third member is mr. benjamin

wittes, senior fellow at the brookings institution and codirector of the harvard law school brookings project a modern security. he's the author of law in the long of work on work on the future of justice in the age of terror published in june 2008 in the 2000 brookings book, legislating the war on terror, an agenda for reform. mr. wittes cofounded and is editor-in-chief of the l'affaire blog, the logical discussion of hard national security choices. between 1997 in 2006 served as editorial writer for the "washington post," specializing in legal affairs. mr. wittes is an alumnus of oberlin college and we thank them for serving as a witness today and look forward to his insight into this complex topic. our final witness is mr. stephen vladeck, a law professor from american university washington

college of law, teaching constitutional law, federal courts, international criminal and national security watching the food. he's a fellow at the national security in new york city. mr. vladeck has co-authored multiple legal textbooks and served as a law clerk of appellate judges in florida and california. he and his' degree in history mathematics of amherst college and his jd from yale where he served as the executive editor of the yale law journal. we are pleased to have them with us today and we thank all of you for joining us to mr. bellinger, we will start with you. each witness has written statements that will be made part of the record in their entirety. i ask each witness summarized his or her testimony of five minutes or less. to help you stay within the time, this time at my dinner table. the light switches programmed to yellow, you have one minute to conclude that when the light

turns red signals the witnesses five minutes have expired. mr. bellinger, welcome. >> thanks very much, mr. chairman and members of the committee for coming for this important hearing today. i doubt this year but many legal issues as the subject of states are to administer this advertiser for the national security council and white house in the first term of the bush administration and the slick lopressor for the state department in the second term. i was in the white house situation room on either but the band spent all eight years of my time dealing with many of the same issues. but the bush and obama administrations have concluded that the targeted killing of al qaeda leaders is lawful under both u.s. and international law under circumstances. the mr. with u.s. law. the president's legal authority to rest in the authorization to use military force at a september 18, 2001, and also

from the u.s. constitution. the problem is the a ums is now nearly 12 years old and congress should update it. it does not provide legislative authority for military and intelligence personnel to conduct the operations necessary to defend against terrorist threats we face a decade after 9/11 and also contains inadequate protections for those targeted were detained including u.s. citizens. in addition to statutory authority that congress, the president has broad authority under the constitution to take necessary actions to defend the united states against terrorist threats. the targeted killing of american citizens raises additional issues because u.s. citizen have certain constitutional rights under the fourth and fifth amendments of the constitution, even when they are outside the united states. the extent of those rights is not clear. no u.s. court has previously

opined on the issue of automatic processes do to an american outside the united states before being targeted by some government. now i agree with the principal conclusions of the justice department white paper reportedly summarizes laws applicable to killing an american citizen who is a senior operational al qaeda leader. in particular, i agree american fitness and was a senior al qaeda leader of said the united states does enjoy constitutional right to due process. they also agreed to sufficient due process for a senior informed government officials to conclude the individual poses violence against the united states before targeting the individual with lethal force. i do not believe the prior judicial review is currently required or should it be required before the u.s. government uses lethal force against an american citizen who

is a senior al qaeda leader outside the united states. the relevant to this committee, congress may still want to specify the conditions in certain processes for targeting an american in this committee may want to consider legislation on this issue. but these processes should reside within the branch with appropriate on this to congress. ..

>> a large number of u.s. drone strikes which reportedly have killed many civilians. u.s. has a strong interest in demonstrating to our allies that the drone strikes are consistent with international law. it is worse than war crimes sharing targeted information and other forms of counterterrorism cooperation. if the obama administration wants to avoid losing the intelligence support of its allies, administration officials need to work harder to explain and defend the legality of this program. the speeches given by administration have been very valuable, but the administration needs to do more to aggress growing national opposition due to the use of drones. it needs to be more transparent about who it is targeting and

the procedures that it applies to ensure that its targets are appropriate and to limit collateral damage to civilians. i think the obama administration should be able to release after-the-fact the names and background information of at least some of the people it has targeted. it should help address the concerns of u.s. targets individuals that do not pose significant threats. i would like to commend this committee and closing for holding this hearing. i would like to end with a plea from more bipartisanship on counterterrorism issues. these issues should not be used to divide the american people. we have all faced a common threat from terrorism, we need to work harder to find bipartisan solutions to these difficult problems. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman, thank you for the members to be here to testify today.

we appreciate it. for the reasons that were just stated, however, i believe that a limited and carefully calibrated judicial role would be permissible as a matter of policy. how could this be the case? we need to bear in mind that there are two distinct scenarios that arise when the government uses the force and the targeted manner. it becomes part of our own conflict, it requires an instant judgment as to whether someone is an enemy, whether a shot should be taken very judicial involvement would of course be grossly impractical, and effects relatively common ground.

unlike the classic scenario, this scenario is a two-stage process with different targets at different points in time. it has given us a fair sense of how this process actually unfolds currently. at stage one, the question is whether the available intelligence to establish the nominated individual is notionally within the scope of the governments asserting target authority. it is so opening the door should that person be located. stage to a rise if the target is located. the person that is being observed as a nominated target.

stage two is a time sensitive scenario that i have described, stage one is quite different. it is no accident that based on the public reporting of what takes place in the obama administration, in many ways it resembles a judicial process and includes a group for discussion, multiple parties way in the debate, what, if anything, the intelligence is to prove. and does it take place regarding the legal boundaries to become part of this authority. the point is judicial involvement would be relatively much less intrusive and unconventional that would be in stage two. while i do not think it's possible to say that the process clause clearly requires stage one issues, there is no current way to get that review, not unless congress acts. i do think that the due process interests of the individuals

involved, who after all may not actually be with the operational leaders after all, a proposal for judicial review at stage one would otherwise raise this. let me clarify what it is that i think a judge would be asked to do in this stage one of you. there are two elements to this great one task would be to confirm or clarify the law with respect to which u.s. person could be targeted. it could result in affirmation of this attorney general's prior speech on us. perhaps resulting in a narrow view or a broader view. whatever the result of that legal inquiry, the task would be to determine whether the information that has been put forward to suggest if a particular american is within the scope of that, actually submission to that. the category is defined with

membership in the enemy force, which is effectively what goes on. the courts have been grappling with is the past four years. if instead, the test is something along these lines, it would be more complicated. certainly it could consider the position in the organization, and a central part of this test. if you met a strict temporal definition, it sounds like a stage to determination that can only be decided at a time and a form of evidence that is thought about inconstant and continuing organization. this is a stage to issue, not something that the judges appropriately intervene with at stage one. i am out of time, so i will

close by quickly noting that there is an objection and that would be the article three jurisdiction could not extend to a situation like this, which would be a precedent. it would be a significant issue. it is not obvious that the courts have the power to do this. but i think the analogy to the system is actually a good one. we will hear more in a moment, suffice to say that in this context, there is very little adversarial testing that is issued in the end. it rarely happens, and when it does, it is always done on the next basis anyway. i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for inviting me to testify on the question of when the united states may lawfully target american terrorists overseas. i want to explain and defend the

legal rationale underlying the administration's targeting of u.s. citizen in narrow circumstances of a person the person who is abroad and believed to be a senior operational leader of al qaeda or the associated forces. the ability to kill one of its own citizens is one of the most awesome and terrifying powers that people can invest in its government. the power to do this without judicial check is certainly anomalous in a society that provides the judicial review of countless lesser assertions of government power. john bates, who presided over this asks how is it that judicial approval decides to target a u.s. citizen for electronic surveillance. according to the government, it is prohibited in the united states decides to target u.s. citizens overseas.

yet there is something equally terrifying. i would suggest more terrifying about a government unwilling as a consequence of its own legal views to protect its people from ongoing threats of attack from citizens overseas. in dealing with major figures overseas who hold american citizenship, the obama administration has confronted a slippery slope with two distinct bottoms. down one side allows government to do something without legal justification or oversight. on the other side is the government that is powerless to confront real threats to the safety and lives of its citizens while terrorist figures operate with impunity in ungoverned spaces. it's not enough to avoid sliding down one of these. with that as a background, let's

consider the targeting power that the obama administration is not claiming with respect to americans overseas who affiliate themselves with the enemy. it is not targeting any such american citizen, only an american citizen that is a senior operation operational forces. it is not claiming the authority to target even such a senior operational terrorist if the capture is a feasible alternative. it is not claiming the authority to target an american citizen that poses no imminent threat to american lives, and it is not claiming the authority to act without the laws of war. given this posture, it is not surprising that there is only one reported case of u.s. forces targeting a specific administration with force. this has forced subsidiary components, each of them in my

view clearly correct. the united states is in a state of armed conflict with al qaeda, the taliban, and its associated forces. second, in this conflict, as indeed in any conflict, the united states is lawfully entitled. and finally, whatever the constitution's due process guarantees may require before targeting a u.s. citizen, these requirements are more than satisfied by rigorous judgment that a person needs the administration's narrow targeting. to understand why this position must be correct, consider a domestic hostage situation. in such a situation, even law enforcement will use this command it will do so without judicial preapproval when the threats of the lives of the

hostages is serious. nobody takes the position that such actions constitute and killings. it is not profoundly different from this hostage situation. a mounting chorus of critics has insisted that judicial review must be a feature of the framework that authorizes the targeting of american nationals. whatever the merit of these mechanisms, one point is very clear. current law simply does not provide for prospective judicial involvement in targeting decisions. it is therefore hard for having failed to bring this case for prospective review before a court that does not exist. in summary, the obama

administration has taken a measured and serious position people overseas. while leaving open the question of the minimum criteria to be lawful in less dire circumstances. it is a position that is neither radical nor surprising, and it ought to not raise concern to the administration which is claiming undue presidential power. thank you for this opportunity to share my views on this important subject, i look forward to your questions. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman, members of the committee, it is a pleasure to be back before you again. i would like to start, although we may disagree about the circumstances, there are some circumstances where the government is allowed to use lethal force even against its own citizens. that is not to say this is a good thing. it is not something we should be happy or proud about. but it is an important starting

from. it is and whether it has the force, but when. that is why some of the statements that you have heard today, so much of the focus among commentators has been on this judicial review. not as a sideshow, not because it is a proxy for larger conversation, but because the real concern is are these operations being carried out in a manner that actually passes legal scrutiny. and how can we be sure, given the pervasive secrecy that surrounds these operations, that the circumstances and criteria, whatever the law that we believe to exist has actually been satisfied in an individual case. in this regard, it is curiously silent. i actually do not disagree that there are concerns that would arise on this review. but what i would like to do in my remarks today in my written

testimony is explained how congress could have a far greater or less problematic problem that would allow these issues these questions to be resolved by creating a cause of it action for damaging after the fact. to my mind, the only answer to the hard questions are for congress to allow the courts to intervene. not beforehand, but afterwards, just as we do when law enforcement uses people for. let me briefly explain how this could work using various examples of this committee is well familiar with to illuminate. first, with regard to creating a cause of action, as the committee knows, when congress enacted the foreign intelligence surveillance act in 1978, one of the provisions included was an express cause of action. even for a secret surveillance program, even where most of these determinations are made behind closed doors. section 1810 of title 50

provides a cause of action for damages and attorney fees, although i wouldn't get that excited at that point in the proposal. so we have this model for congress to provide retrospective damages, even for a secret government operations. there would still be other things that could get in the way. the obama administration had followed the predecessors invoking these kinds of cases, as this committee knows, there have been various proposals floated in congress and last for five years to curtail this privilege. for example, the protection act that was proposed in 2009. whether you follow this or not, it certainly would be easy for congress by statute to provide procedures pursuant to what these issues could be resolved while protecting governmental secrecy. one can model those after the classified information procedures act, which this congress passed to apply to criminal prosecutions and one

could also look to the guantánamo kbs cases, where the courts have performed an ad hoc form to allow for things to be resolved. and the model for that is not to allow the individual litigants who have not disclosed a single item is part of the guantánamo hearing. congress, in 1988, they provided a way around now for a certain time and whereby the statute substitutes the federal government as the defendant. any time an operation that falls within this cause of action is carried out within the scope of the officers employment. what exactly would courts be reviewing on the merit? i think mr. chairman, we could have four or five hearings to

answer that question. let me just start that this is a question that the courts are not completely incompetent at handling. in the context of law enforcement operations, courts look backward after a legal use of force to decide whether the officer looks at this through hindsight, even though there are concerns about hindsight bias. if we could reach a consensus, mr. chairman, on how to resolve these claims, on what the law should be going forward, it would not be that hard just as frankfurt has indicated it does come slowly from unchecked disregard of the interesting assertion of authority spirit seems to me that these present

the legislature with two realistic choices. it could accept the executive branch as claimed, these are carried out lawfully with every relevant procedural issue to thereby open the door to be unchecked with disregard or congress could cause them to defend before and independence guaranteed by the constitution salary and protection. as long as it is adequately protected, what does the government have to hide? well, in closing, i want to make one last point. as it was suggested, there has only been one reported case and they're only three u.s. citizens who have been killed in this operation. if one listens to senator graham, who given his role, he

would know, there are as many as 4700 casualties. 4700 people who have been killed by american drone strike. i am sure that many of the strikes are illegal, it's possible that most were legal. but i think it's important to keep in mind as we talk about drones and accountability for the government, we're not just talking about this one person. thank you, mr. junta. i look forward to your questions >> thank you for very good testimony. i will begin the testimony with you. the administration tries to establish that an american citizen who is a senior operational leader of an al qaeda or associated force of al qaeda, poses an imminent threat and the capture is not feasible, u.s. can target and kill. according to the papers, imminent threat and the feasibility of capture are not well-defined. you see any problems with the lack of specifics in these

definitions? >> thank you, mr. turner. the white paper is a summary, a 15 page summary of what apparently is a much longer legal procedure. most members of congress have not seen this entire legal opinion. however, i have been part of the committee and i understand that the administration, while perhaps not providing the opinion that was provided to the president needs to be as forthcoming as possible on these issues about imminent, i agree that m&ms cannot mean that it is about to push the button tomorrow and that is the only time that you can target it. there has to be a longer lead time. that is a very controversial concept that i think that has been troubling to americans and

extremely troubling to our allies. at what point is the u.s. saying they will target someone if this concept of imminence is redefined to be a broad concept. >> it is not just killing, but other actions taken by the government. the congress has already required that the military get court approval before targeting an american citizen for surveillance. which has less consequences and than killing them. even in a foreign country. so why should the requirement extended to a targeted killing? well, this is one of the great ironies at the broad conceptual level. why is it that to conduct electronic surveillance of american, the executive branch has to go to court. thirty or so years ago, they

said that we want to set very specific parameters before the executive branch does that. congress could do that in this case. i think that is something to that this committee ought to think about. i do believe, as you have heard from my colleagues, that this could be a solution in search of a problem. united states is not out regularly killing americans. >> it is good for the congress to check and make sure. >> that's right. >> even if only one american has been killed, if congress is concerned about the government targeting people. i think that congress could reasonably pass a statute that said not to require judicial review, because i really think that is too difficult, particularly in an armed conflict war. especially regarding the circumstances that the executive branch has to satisfy. then to require some notice and reporting back to congress. that is the check and balance.

>> let me go on to mr. chesney and mr. waits. first of all, does this provide enough information about why the administration believes it has the authority to kill u.s. and abroad? i'm not talking about the one particular individual. he got the end that he deserved. i would indicate that you have collateral damage that you have to pay attention to that. a united states citizen and not a senior operational leader who was killed in the same attack. i would like you to tell us how we can refine making that distinction and protect the rights of law-abiding citizens. i think it is a legitimate question. >> mr. chairman, as it was said,

it is quite possible that in some of the documents, it has targeted that the administration has been a part of. there is a fair amount of detail. it is the 2001 authorization of military force, it is pertinent here, al qaeda, membership is woven into the conditions that were specified. both in the speech and in the white paper. the more interesting question is what about threats that are of a similar magnitude. those that do not have a part of the al qaeda nexus. the nature of this threat environment the threat is al

qaeda and just in the direction of certain forces, and we must ask whether there is a need for clear status in congress as to what the range in this ought to be, and we need to bear the armed conflict model. that being said, we are also careful to identify the distinct head of the authority. that has to do with the president defending the nation when faced with threats to the american lives. >> lines. >> let me interrupt you. my time has expired and i would like to get to the hostage situation. >> number one, in regards to that, collateral is a distinct possibility and it is one of the background principles that i think makes the analogy so precise. it is a possibility that you may actually accidentally kill some

of the hostages. number two, i think the collateral deaths of u.s. citizens -- >> what about the danger that is very real. >> yes, that's correct. you have the possibility of imminent danger. >> you don't necessarily have that with somebody driving around this drone attack you but you do have the possibility of people on airplanes, those who are allegedly dealing with the taliban. >> i am not defending it. i want to know what we can do to protect u.s. citizens from having that. >> can i just respond that? i think the answer has to be rigorous procedures. whether there is rigorous procedures that are, you know, you want them both on the side of making sure the targeted of the person that you think he is,

and making sure that you have identified the person who is a lawful target. and you also want rigorous procedures that will be consistent with the laws of war, and minimizing collateral damage. >> i am going to interrupt. i would like to say a few words and i would like to turn to my colleague. i have exceeded my time. >> mr. chairman, the only thing that i would add is that i think it's very important, especially for the purpose of this conversation, to keep in mind that we are dealing with different scenarios and categories of cases. so the answer to your question, i believe it is going to change depending upon whether the justification for the strike is classic self-defense, where there is a greater imminent threat to u.s. interests. >> the hostage situation. >> yes. or not as part of self-defense, but the broader part of conflict in the parts of the world where there are active operations.

i do believe that we are going to have very different answers on which category we are talking about. >> the chair recognizes the ranking member of the constitution subcommittee and the gentleman from new york. >> thank you, mr. junta. my first question, i'm just going to read the question. imagine that vladimir putin had used remote-controlled drones to kill thousands of enemies. throughout asia and eastern europe. imagine that he refused to acknowledge the killings and he had the right to kill anyone that he secretly determined was a leader of associated forces. even if they pose no immediate threat of attack in russia. how did state department treat this project with its human rights compliance?

>> thank you. in fact, as i alluded to in my opening remarks and at greater length, and my testimony, it is a real problem where the state department spokesman is going to have to stand up after russia and china has used the drone against a dissident in a country in the state department will have to explain why that was and that it extremely important for our government and the executive branch to lay down is precisely clear rules for the use of drones. >> wouldn't it be the case that china or someone, the we would condemn that out of hand? that we wouldn't say that this one is okay, that one wasn't?

>> if they were being attacked -- >> we are judging the impact at one point. >> is somewhere posing imminent threats to russia in the country they were in was unwilling or unable to prevent that threat, i think we would have to acknowledge the right to defend. >> something that john bellinger said. you need to process this. i do not understand. i don't understand how unilateral determination without any judicial involvement can be considered in any form. let me ask the following question. you said that we can attack a senior operational terrorist posing an imminent threat consistent with the laws of war. i do not understand why we need

a senior operations terrorism i can just be an ordinary terrace. i don't know why it has to be posing a threat. i think the analysis is completely different. either this person is an enemy combatant or he is not. if he is not, he is subject to normal criminal law and we have the process to take them into custody and support. the question is how do we determine he is an enemy combatant and who determines whether he is, whether he is senior or not, from this point of view. who can determine what presidents do we have and how can the executives determine that without any kind of

determination. >> i would just say as a matter of law, you have taken a position that is far more permissive with respect to targeting than the obama administration's position. >> no, i have said you have to determine the military combatant. >> you've suggested a narrower process to determine a broader category. the obama administration has taken the view that it generally will not specifically and it does not assert the right to target any u.s. national overseas who makes it in a law of war belligerency. it will target people only when they are an imminent threat nacl operational leader whose capture is unfeasible. you're taking a view that is potentially much more permissive permissive and inclusive of more targets. but with a concern about the lack of process on the judicial site. i would just say -- i think it

is a very legitimate question what processes this body wants to impose for making those determinations. my only point is that there is nothing -- there is nothing particularly extreme about the position. nothing extreme at all about this position that the administration has taken about whom a major target and under current law, which is the law under which it confronted this case, which is the case that gave rise to these in the first place, there is no basis for judicial process at all. there is no form in which to take these questions. >> all i would say is that i share your concerns and i am surprised to hear the attorney general say that. the only thing that i think that is worth bearing in mind is that due process is not necessarily a

requirement. >> of what? >> pre-deprecation. there are circumstances where they have said that government is allowed to act and we will review after-the-fact whether they acted with sufficient safeguards. so i share your view. the point is that it is not necessarily a pre-decoration judicial process, but rather there is a requirement that some magistrate is reviewing it. whether it was made without adequate safeguards. >> can i just ask for a comment that i have posed? if someone is not an enemy combatant, you cannot target him in any way without due process and determination. if he is an enemy combatant, how do we determine? if someone is wearing a uniform, i'm pretty safe to assume that it is an enemy combatant.

in the absence of that, how do we determine and what should we determine who is an enemy combatant? >> article five creates a requirement that when there is doubt, it doesn't have to be a judicial hearing, but there are some requirements -- it doesn't have to be before you capture them, but at some point, as soon as it is reasonably possible, you are ensuring that the procedural safeguards that you have implemented have produced the right person. saying that we need more due process where things are concerned. >> okay, your time is expired. >> i recognize myself now for five minutes. and i would make this point. i have listened to the testimony here. going back and reflecting on the

constitution, the commander in chief, even though there is a little political tension over this issue. i do not want to disempower our commander-in-chief from protecting americans wherever they might be. neither do i want to delay the decision to act. if we are going to review this under the definition to come out of the executive branch, or we define those conditions here by this congress. then we ask for a review. it delays the response and then goes to congress or goes to the judicial branch of government. that is the question that is before us. the definitions and i will say that it has to be retrospective and not perspective. i read prefer that we reviewed here in congress rather than

handing over fighting in the judicial branch. on the other hand, the politicization is the balance. there is a question that is before me and i would just ask each of the witnesses to go down the line and talk about judicial or congressional review. the definitions i do not think we want to address precisely today. what would be your preference? >> well, i don't know why you couldn't have both processes operating side-by-side, where individual victims of strikes they believe are unlawful have recourse to the courts. i don't know why at all. i think they serve different purposes and i think they vindicate different interest interests. >> with regard to security? >> i think the guantánamo cases are important for all this.

many have concerns about information being disclosed to the public and the media and etc. even though there are some five or six dozen cases since this 2008 decision, i am unfamiliar with any single incident where any item of classified information was disclosed through these proceedings inappropriately. >> i would agree with that. what about you, sir? >> i am sort of instinctively opposed to prospective judicial review of these questions. i do think that congress in the form of this, and senator feinstein has issued a statement about what the senate intelligence committee has done in the way of reviewing the strikes, which seems fairly substantial, so i do think some of that is already going on. in addition, i have to say that i find professor stephen

vladeck's statement to be a very intriguing document, and i am, you know, i think there is a lot to recommend and i commend it to the committee. i also think that professor chesney, who in his written statement, has attempted to narrow the categories of prospective review, which as i say, i viscerally opposed. but narrowing it down to its finest levels where it would be least intrusive is a model that has a lot to recommend. i think that there is a large agreement that there are opportunities. >> would've delay in operation, perhaps? >> i fear that it could. i also fear that the temptation on the part of the executive branch would be to throw lots of things to whatever tribunal that was created in order to get

cover for things. you end up with an unanticipated dialogue between whatever tribunal may be created and the executive impact. much in the way that this has been done, you know, in many ways in that context. >> sir? >> i certainly believe it should be as much transparency as possible. i think that is critical and common ground for almost everybody here. the hard question is as was said, my own remarks show that i do come down with favoring this set of issues. it includes the issues that are very time sensitive.

whether this moment is in fact what you think it is. whether it is feasible. what i do think could be possibly reviewed by this, and i think certainty is better, and that would include the alleged number ship of the individual in the organization in question and the role within the organization. i say this only on the assumption that we are in a situation where it is not good to determine that right now. >> thank you. >> sir? >> we seem to be coming out with these comments. it is a problem that is coming up frequently. we have only had one example. if we get over the hurdle and i think congress could legislate who should be targeted and the

procedures that would be required inside the executive branch. i would not require a retrospect to judicial review. i think the checks and balances in our system are reporting to congress, if possible, beforehand. the executive branch could have told the intelligence committee that we completely disagree. certainly after the fact, i see no reason why they cannot come and report back to congress. if congress says this is not the authority that we gave you, we have real concerns about it. remember, as he said, we are talking about an armed conflict

situation. therefore, tying his hands one way or another before or after with judicial review and an armed conflict decision, i think there is a very serious problem. >> thank you. i think the witnesses, and i see that my time has expired and i yield to the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the determination has to be made with a senior operational leader with al qaeda, assistant with the laws of war. did i miss it where they talked about the standards beyond a reasonable doubt, preponderance of the evidence or what is not clearly erroneous?

where is the standard? >> if you missed it, i missed it as well. partially i think it is because it is a burden that would come and play. >> what evidence can be considered? >> certainly there are no imposed parts of evidence. >> could be considered to ascertain whether or not these sectors are considered. >> there may be internal and executive branch was the deal with this. >> we are talking about the internal stuff that can change everyday. is there any prohibition against this? >> by a tsa not considered in this court of law? >> i think it is generally believed to be inherently

unreliable. >> is that the best you can determine? >> there is nothing that suggested it couldn't be. >> we have had situations where you have an ongoing situations and is there any problem with a prospective judicial review that is feasible beforehand? >> i think congressman, there are two problems. one legal and one practical. i do think you could solve the concerns through an emergency exception. but i think the legal concern is there is an article three question about whether there is adversity in the judicial proceedings. the reason is because those are seen as ancillary to the subsequent criminal proceedings. i think you have a very serious problem if the government had this application to judge what

no one represented on the other side at that point or afterwards. my concern is this review could turn into a death warrant where judges feel enormous pressure in these circumstances. deferring to the government, especially without adverse counsel, whereas, in the context of retrospective review, judges can see what happens. i think there are legal and practical problems that are separate from the emergency situation that we could provide for by statute. >> how long the people on the list? >> we do not know. certainly, as i think the last exchange suggested, it appears to be the case that she was targeted for some extended period of time. >> if you're on the list, to some extent, at some point.

>> you know, his family did. there was a lawsuit bottom half of him in this federal district court before the operation mat that ended up determining his life. you know, that suit was dismissed on a series of procedural grounds, that it wasn't just part of the questions. there wasn't even an attempt to do exactly that. >> what recourse is there for someone who is on the list by mistake? >> well, the government, i don't know hattersley to take it, but the government would be obliging. you know, at least one of his public that believes it has the authority to seize to turn themselves in. but there is no particular

procedure for that. >> is drone killing the only method of? >> i think it is important to keep in mind that this conversation is not actually about drones as such, but it's about uses of any number of military hardware to conduct targeted killings, whether through an unmanned aerial vehicle, the tomahawk missile, or anything else. >> a handgun? >> just. >> it is not about drones exactly, but it makes it easier and cheaper for the government to conduct these operations than conventional technologies might. >> any rationale for allowing this? what happens? >> one of the critical considerations was the lack of capture. i have to think that the federal government will never take the position that they would capture an individual in the territory of the united states.

but i still think that they could probably, i think the government could claim the authority in exceptional circumstances to use force in the u.s., enforcement do it all the time. that circumstance won't arrive because you are never satisfied to capture this. it doesn't mean that they would not. >> thank you for being here. i was struck by the chairman of the committee is juxtaposition between surveillance and the drone strikes. i will have to go ahead and begin my comments by suggesting that as we look back, not such a long time ago when the administration eviscerated, the bush administration, for

waterboarding, certainly it is under circumstances that were compelling as they were today. get the drone strikes are something that they can move forward with. it seems that there is more than a subtle difference between waterboarding and blowing someone into eternity. the hypocrisy of the administration is profound on this front. with that said, i have come to expect and anticipate a certain cognitive dissonance and unwillingness for them to hold two previous statements or positions. my thought is for those of us that are committed to protecting the constitution, protecting the constitutional way of life.

that we have to then focus very narrowly on this phrase of due process. but that has to be our definitional tasker there are none of us believe that we just need to do away with due process. however, as the gentleman mentioned earlier, we have due process in this country, if there is an imminent threat, and sometimes the degree of dominance is taking into consideration, the due process exists because of that conditionality. what i would like to do, if i could start with you, to simply see if we can find consensus among the panel as to what critical elements should be in any congressional outline of due

process here, and whether there should be significant measures built into that kind of guideline to keep the administration within what fits the constitutional premise. serve? >> thank you, sir. i cannot resist with someone who has been all eight years in the bush administration, sometimes receiving the criticisms from people on the outside. those two address the point about this, and the counterterrorism policies, including the john strikes, i would like to have seen some of these acknowledge that maybe some of these issues that they have claimed, we were making huge mistakes, they were more difficult than what we acknowledge. we have seen little of that, frankly one of the reasons i'm here today as a republican official is to get the same kind

of support to this administration that i would have liked to have seen given to us on these difficult counterterrorist issues. that being said, with respect to due process, the question of due process does not mean judicial process. it can mean judicial process in some circumstances, but the constitution never says judicial process. it says he cannot be deprived of the right to liberty to due process. what is the process in a particular situation? well, in a situation where we have an armed conflict, for example, a war, i think a conflict that can appropriately say that an american can only be asking about certain criteria great senior al qaeda leaders, those who are planning attacks, and that those are imminent attacks. that the executive branch has to review this and reach high confidence that the person reaches those criteria. where possible, has notified

congress in advance, if that is possible, and certainly afterwards to have notified them after the fact. so i would guess that at minimum, the panelists would have said that we could agree on those criteria if congress were going to legislate. and the only add-on as if there would be some judicial role or not. >> well, thank you, sir, i appreciate your answers across the board. sir, could i ask you to take a shout out? >> i think that we have to be careful. perhaps i wasn't clear in my responses. it is not that due process is a requirement. it is that the way to ensure that the government has provided the process that is due is not simply to take the government's word for it, but is to provide independent external review, that whatever process was under the circumstance, that it was in fact provided and not just asserted as provided. to that end, i think this court can look to the jurisprudence

that the supreme court has articulated in these cases. especially with regard to those who take up arms against the united states as part of the taliban. i think there is a lot that we could learn from that example with regard to the balance we could strike. and i think that this committee is serious about codifying the standards, there is plenty of precedents. ..

to even provide and create civil vanities, that by itself would have been incredibly salutary effect of the government's practice. going further, which managed the question of who would prosecute that case when the government be interested in prosecuting its own officers had those soldiers for crossing the line in that case? >> would do that all the time. >> the uniform code of military justice does provide for her schliemann necrosis line. civil remedies might be sufficient. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> i thank the gentleman for scotland questioning. the gentleman from port rico. >> have a couple questions based

on your prior testimony and witness submissions. i've noticed some of you it's not all have asserted that the obama industry should actually take in a very limited targeting authority with respect to american citizens. my first question for each of you then is do you believe the obama administration, consistent with article ii of the constitution could have asserted a broader, far broader targeting authority? if the answer is yes, in what respects? basically i am interested in understanding whether you believe it has gone to the outer limits of this article to powers and if not, in what specific ways it has not. >> do you want -- >> each of you comment on this. >> i think it's an excellent question. the administration has not gone

to the outer bounds of its constitutional powers that be. of course none of us know at this balancer. there's not a clear answer to this question. the administration has taken a very restrictive standard. mr. nadler gave an example. instead of saying the only americans targeted because her senior operational al qaeda leaders who pose an imminent threat, the administration could've fit under the constitution that any american who is taking up arms against the united states as part of an armed conflict could be targeted. if this were a traditional word in world war ii and every german-american, we would never have said the only german-american who taken up arms would be a person who is the senior theater who pose an imminent threat at the time. dessert money rather authority and to the administration would

understand this is a serious power and they've taken in this case a fairly limited reading. >> i agree with that as well. i like that it's noticeable to illustrations from the nation and the way paper and attorneys general speeches archive a specific. doesn't have to be if we talk about duties and authorities to defend the nation and imminent threat. if that threat came from some of the extremist group, that power would still be there. >> ever decide to come you frame your question in article ii, but the administration could take a much more robust position under the aumf itself in the position be suggested by the line of questioning congressman nadler asked before. the d.c. circuit has said in a habeas corpus case technically it's enough to justify

targeting -- justify detention to be targeted substantially supporting enemy forces. just focus on the component of that. too fathered your line of questioning, an american who is part of enemy forces is lawfully targetable under the laws of water and under the aumf. it does not take that position. it has a personal in that position to be clear. what it has said is that the trust a single very specific case, which is the case of anwar al-awlaki, who was found to be a senior al qaeda operational leader, his capture was not possible, who posed an imminent threat in his targeting would be lawful under the laws of work announced a comprehensive question which insists that awful to target this guy? eliminate and admirably so as not to take a digger questions

and more difficult questions than they needed to and not omit. they limited their answer to those three, which are really for circumstance. that leaves a lot of ancillary questions, like what about the nonoperational senior theater who poses an imminent threat? at about the operational senior theater who doesn't pose an imminent threat? at about the u.s. citizen soldier? office questions are left open and there is no claim of authority to target such people. >> with the gentleman yield? >> that objection is recognized. >> i just want to clarify since my comments have been quoted that was not suggesting that the administration were to broaden its targeting criteria. by simply suggesting none of

this makes any sense until you have determined the enemy combatant. that is the first question that must be determined with some sort of due process or natural process. >> if i may, there's two baskets of questions here. one is the criteria for targeting and vanessa procedural dimension of how you determine whether somebody is in a sensitive criteria or outside it. when you and i have the exchange earlier, you described a very broad criteria for targeting and suggested during sadie about u.s. targeting practices vis-à-vis citizen is on the procedural side, whether people were or were not in that narrow basket. my argument is that the administration done is exactly the opposite, to find a sensitive basket and has no

known procedural -- >> my point was however narrow or broad -- i'm not suggesting broad name, you have to answer that question first, are you an enemy combatant? >> all the members of the panel would agree with you. >> i thank the gentleman for the clarification. >> may have 30 seconds to confirm one fact quite >> without objection. >> thank you so much. this is based on mr. chesney's comment before appeared the obama administration requires there be a link with al qaeda before you can do any targeting here, is that correct? the latest formulated right now, this policy requires a link to al qaeda, is that right? >> it is formulated in a way to

make an affirmative claim to attack the senior al qaeda link. but i don't think it's a way to suggest they are denying that authority otherwise. but they do build al qaeda or associated for his is an accorsi associated forces raises the question how broad is not quite >> the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from texas, mr. poe. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to get back to some basics that i know this may travel mr. nadler, but i probably agree with the one much. i don't want to make you nervous, mr. nadler. and the big scheme of things when this came to light, myself and mr. doughty from south carolina wrote a letter to eric holder in december asking for specific constitutional authority and tracking the

activities that drone strikes against americans overseas. we spent a letter subsequent to that when we got more information and they still haven't received an answer from eric holder. as the chairman is pointed out, no one from the justice department with their battery of lawyers. we had a wonderful stand here or sit here and tell us the constitutional authority for killing americans overseas that fit this criteria. if they can in this consent to introduce both letter sent the record, mr. chairman. >> without objection. >> by background is a judge. i get troubled by prosecutors who want to do judicial things and not tell us how they come to certain conclusions. i don't buy the argument there's not much time to get some judicial review. 22 years of experience, judges working with one person i can be

pretty fast with the serious examples you have talked about. i don't buy it if we have to let prosecutors do judicial review. they work for the executive branch. that's my constitutional perception on the whole issue. so i think the point serius u.s.a. who fits this criteria and who makes the determination that that person fits the criteria? senior-level executive branch person yet to be named like a draft choice, that troubles me who that's going to be. who is that person? redone. it. it's just a senior-level executive person. i don't think that's the authority of the executive ranch. and he makes that determination and the person is allowed to be on the kill list. mr. chesney come university of texas, congratulations, by the

way. two daughters they are. but let me ask you this. he made the comment during your testimony that if there is a judicial review, a good idea may be to review it when the person is put on the kill list. i am troubled with the concept they are put on the kill list, are killed and then we have a review after that to see if it was lawful? that doesn't do the dead guy much of the family made a a mistake here. don't get me wrong. i don't like these people. i think they need to be on the wall and deal with them for crimes against america. i ask you to weigh on this to help us improve the system or operating under because as he pointed out, you have to do judicial review to listen to the phone conversation with americans overseas. you don't need judicial review is to kill them overseas.

do you need judicial review to put this person on the kill list? >> scare, it's a good idea and can be done. the key to doing it carefully so it simultaneously addresses the interests of the citizen from the imperative for protecting the country is to disaggregate the questions you might ask. we don't want judges center. an extremely time sensitive questions about should we pull the trigger right now in this instance? there's only this much time to do it. that's probably a fact pattern by these identified kill the scenarios. as we now come as the how lucky you case shows, is the person is being tappable category in general and whether or not some particular tax should be carried out. there's a role for the judiciary of congress wants to establish it. i think they probably should.

as to the early determination, which is the time sensitive in the same way. >> we've been talking about an individual. what if the individual does not in one country will suspect were al qaeda is coming now it's everywhere. what if the individual is one of the allies country? what if they're in france? what is there in mexico, the discussion with the white house, whoever it is to get that person on the kill list and then buttram? >> is a different set of rules do not mary jo. you can exit the administration's rationale that the capture must not be feasible. you have someone in france, united states, mexico, england. capture is going to be feasible and that alone may address it. >> i know my time is limited, but i'd like to ask, is that

discretionary? is that policy or his favorite model? >> the whole problem with the uncertainties we don't have clear written law. that said, i think the feasibility test may be implicated by the fifth amendment, fourth amendment. >> may have something to that? when you talk about potential lethal force operations and allied countries or countries other than pakistan, yemen, somalia, mali, you are talking about a situation where the other legal constraint on u.s. action and particularly sovereignty come into play. one of the things that causes those environments we operate and to be relatively permissive is either consent of the government in question to do this operations, which presumably canada and france are

not going to give away finding that professor chesney was making about feasibility of capture, but they are either unable or unwilling to manage separate the individual poses, which their law-enforcement capacity would make difficult to make. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> if the gentleman will yield to make the point we don't put ourselves in the position with this analogy tron by mr. wittes that we rely on the foreign government to protect their own government protectiveness rates. i'd be pleased to yield to mr. lofgren for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have just a few quick questions. i am, i'll just be frank, troubled that the memoranda that allegedly provide the legal basis for this type not been

shared. i am wondering, maybe you can't and if you answer it, if you can i'd be interested, what conceivable reason they would be for the obama administration to not share these memos and what the consequences are for not sharing these memos. anybody who can answer that i would like to hear. >> it may surprise you as as a republican official, but it will take a stab at defining the having spent four years as the white house lawyer. this is a private advice given to the president of the united states in just the latest of many is allowed to reside on mr. amos advisability sepia face given to you to see what it tastes you're getting. >> with the gentlewoman yield? >> they share that with other members of congress. >> for me just finish the point.

what we are talking about is not a particular document. the administration to the extent they've not make clear what critical analysis is, absolutely they owe you a full -- >> what you can do and what you should do are sometimes different. it strikes me in this case that this is one of those cases where if you take a look at the authorization for use of military force, which all of us voted for, for those of us here, there is only one no vote analysis oppressiveness t. is appropriate or is against organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided terrorist attacks. now are we to believe that everybody on this list was response will for the 9/11 attack? is that the rationale?

>> you're exactly right. all four of us agree with you that the 2001 aumf, only 60 were small, i was involved in drafting it in the back of an envelope of the world trade center source oldroyd is long in the tooth. the good government solution will extremely difficult and controversial would be for congress to work together with the executive branch to advice that aumf. it's completely unclear what it covers, who covers. >> if i may, it's not as unclear as you suggest. this is a limitation in the big arguments about it as you are aware there is a prior draft much more expansive and there is narrow so we could get bipartisan consensus. and it was merit for support

reasons. i guess yes, the executive has the ability to keep his ugly face confidential. but the long-standing principle. since it looks like questions i raised as to budget the executive is compliant with the law, that if he feels he is, it would be a very paused just a pretty administration to share that legal theory with this committee and with the american people who i think have doubts that are substantial and if it can be cleared up, there would be a good government response it seems to me. and if they can't be clear to come up with another serious problem to deal with. >> i agree 99% of the way to the extent the administration's legal theory remains some clear to congress, i think administration officials should be a peer to publicly or

privately put in writing what they can. the questions you raise are fair. it's a really clear that 4000 people who were dead, that every single one of those fell within the aumf. but if the president outlined his constitutional powers? these are legitimate questions. the only thing i would say the president of the united states is allowed to receive a particular memo on a particular day and rely on that. >> all just say that is not a huge fan on the bishop as many of my colleagues know, but we did get access to their memorandum, laying out their rationale. i thought it was poorly written on this advice, but that these three were provided with the analysis they were attempting to rely on them and accept no less

than the current president. i yield that. >> i thank the gentleman in the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina, mr. garrity for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and a brief but inspiring support partisanship, i want to express my frustration at the doj's absence today. some of my colleagues and i worked there. and plenty of things that remain. i respect their work. i understand not responding to a letter from some guy from south. sinai. i don't understand not responding to judge poe's letter. i really don't understand not respecting the committee and asked to send someone. because it ever hear -- don't misunderstand me, i appreciate your presence. my questions are going to be directed to them for this

reason. i don't need a doj memo to tell me you can use lethal force to read powell an imminent threat. i didn't need them to tell me that. police officer shoots folks of the times. privacy shoot oaks invading homes all the time. in fact, noncitizens can shoot a united states citizen without having to go to a judge before hand. there is review afterward, both criminal and civil. i didn't need the department of justice to tell me that. i also did not meet the department of justice to explain to me in times of war don't need a judge picking targets for you. any time of war, you can't have a judge balancing whether or not this much collateral tmh. whatever you want to rest the department of justice, mr. chairman, is this.

this two references in this memo were the target of the lethal operation, a u.s. citizen who may have rights under the due process clause in the fourth amendment on h2, mr. chairman. but apart understands the rights afforded by the fifth amendment's due process clause as well as the fourth amendment attached to a u.s. citizen even while he is abroad. so it fits in attached is in the fourth amendment attaches, just the u.s. citizen traveling abroad enjoy a full panoply of constitutional protections? and if not, why not? whichever law professor -- i would pick the one that is made about reagan, mall, but it's not here. >> i think i can take a crack.

>> is the eighth? >> i think the background behind which the memo that this white paper is based on this critical to this question. >> i appreciate that. i just want to know, does the u.s. citizen enjoy a full panoply whether traveling abroad? this memo said they may, or we are assuming. just with amendment apply? >> bible that an actual professor -- >> i don't care. do i have to abide by miranda? >> the supreme court raises very serious held the fourth amendment does not apply a broad to noncitizens. >> i'm talking about citizens abroad. today or do they not quick

>> the short answer is yes. >> yes -- >> corser said, congressman come in the context of rates may vary in scope. >> this is by and had it. how was the analysis different a u.s. citizen at the department's criteria in charleston, south carolina and said it else. if you have the same panoply of constitutional protections overseas this year, can you ecm and it dried to take out americans owe? if not, why not? >> viscose thanks to a point for the relevance of the captured a piece of this. >> i feel it and we hang our hat on the feasibility from some senior-level official who decides whether it's feasible. >> defeasible should be reviewable after-the-fact.

>> that is a little consolation if you are dead. is there criminal review? >> if the government wants to indict one of its officers, certainly. >> you think this memo would allow -- she would do it? that be the executive ranch, right? we have not had much success getting the executive ranch to an response against itself. i can tell you in the two years i've been here, we are zero for three or four on that. >> there is president of the congress wanted to revisit the counsel statute, because it issues a hearing on that front as well. >> i would love at some point for the department of justice if we are not taking too much of their time, to come explain to us whether this analysis is equally applicable to american citizens on american soil because the feasibility of capture is little consolation to

me that it's the only thing protect us from this operation. >> i thank the gentleman and i note the mission was extended and will stand up in. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. deutsch for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. bellinger, you said in your testimony and exchange with mr. knopfler, you spoke about the nature of clear international rules. what would happen if this action were taken via their countries. i had to excuse myself to attend another meeting. if you elaborated, i apologize for asking. this conversation we are having about constitutional protections and how this program against al qaeda functions under our constitution is obviously of the

greatest in port to this committee. the issue you raise is a very good one. what are those rules? who sets them? what standards should be a place in the event you elaborated little bit and then alaska follow up question. >> i'm delighted to rest the question. the judiciary committee is most concerned about the protection of americans in this hearing. as has been alluded to, 3,004,000 people dead are not americans said they don't have constitutional rights. the rules that apply to them at the international law and both the bush and obama administrations have tried hard to clarify they are complying with international law. they're not using force in another country in violation of international law or not killing people in assassinations are murderers. that said, no other country in

the world has come out publicly and said they agree with our position. at the very unsteady place for the united states to be. i wanted the united states to appear around the world to the act in accordance with international law and the obama administration has asserted this and i believe that they are, but we are in a position where most countries don't agree with this, are beginning to accuse us of violations of international law and the administration needs to work harder to clarify those rules. >> what are the violations? who is making the accusations and what are they accusing us of? >> other countries have begun to raise concerns. their lawsuits in pakistan and the u.k. a lawsuit against the foreign secretary suggested the sharing of intelligence information by the british government with the american government may constitute war crimes making british intelligence officials cly